Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband against the judgment and decree dated 4.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon dismissing the petition filed by the appellant/husband under section13 (i) & (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultery. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents for 24.9.2003, dasti notices were also issued. Dasti summons were not served. Fresh notices were ordered to be issued for 28.10.2003. Notices sent by post were not served, and received back. Notices were again ordered to be issued. Registered covers issued to the respondents were received back with the remarks that she had left the place, whereas summons issued to respondent No.2 were not received back. 3. In spite of a positive report by process serving agency that respondent No.1 had left the place, instead of filing correct address, or proving that the respondents were intentionally evading service, on an application moved by the appellant/husband, respondents were ordered to be served by way of substituted service. Service was effected in Marathi News-paper having circulation in the area of Kolhapur, Maharashtra. As nobody had put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, they were proceeded against ex parte. 4. The appellant led ex parte evidence in order to prove adultery of respondent No.1, however, he could not succeed, and the petition filed by husband was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended, that the judgment and decree deserves to be reversed, as the allegations leveled and proved by evidence constituted cruelty, within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act. 6. Mr. J.S. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, however, pointed out that the appellant took advantage by effecting substituted service on the respondents at Kolhapur address by misleading the learned matrimonial court though it was within his knowledge that the respondent was residing at Greate Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. at that time. 7. In support of this contention the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has placed on record a certificate issued by the Director, Greater Noida Institute of Technology, wherein it has been certified that respondent No.1 was Lecturer in Department of Chemistry, and Hostel Warden from August 01, 2003 to March 31, 2005. 7. In support of this contention the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has placed on record a certificate issued by the Director, Greater Noida Institute of Technology, wherein it has been certified that respondent No.1 was Lecturer in Department of Chemistry, and Hostel Warden from August 01, 2003 to March 31, 2005. This certificate leaves no doubt that the respondent was not served. 8. The learned matrimonial court, therefore, was not justified in proceeding against the respondent ex parte. Consequently, the orders passed to proceed against the respondent, ex parte are set aside and opportunity is given to the respondents to contest the petition on merit. 9. In view of the fact that order directing ex parte proceeding against respondent is set aside, the judgment and decree passed by the learned matrimonial court is also set aside, and case is remanded back to the matrimonial court for adjudication on merit, after permitting the respondents to contest the petition by filing written statement. 10. Respondent No.1, through her counsel is directed to appear before learned District Judge, Gurgaon on 31.8.2009 at 10 AM. Record of matrimonial court be remitted back before the date fixed.